How to raise a document discrepancy with a client without stalling the transaction

When you find a discrepancy in a client's documents, there's a natural pull in two directions: say nothing and hope it sorts itself out, or pick up the phone and make the client feel like everything is about to fall apart. Neither helps. How you raise a document problem often determines whether the matter keeps moving or comes to a dead stop.

Start by categorising the problem

Not every discrepancy carries the same weight, and treating them all the same wastes everyone's time. Before you say anything to the client, decide which of two categories the issue falls into.

Discrepancies that block completion. The ID number on the contract doesn't match the client's passport. The party's name differs between the transfer deed and the supporting document. The authority to sign has expired. These need to be resolved before exchange or completion — either the document gets corrected, or a replacement is provided.

Discrepancies that need to be noted but don't block. A middle name present in the deed but absent from the contract. A minor spelling variation that context makes unambiguous. These are usually managed with a file note and, where relevant, a brief clarification in the deed itself.

The category shapes how you talk to the client. A blocking discrepancy needs a specific action and a deadline. A non-blocking one may need nothing more than a file note.

How to structure the conversation

The most common mistake is leading with the problem and stopping there. "Your ID number on the contract is wrong" tells the client something has gone wrong, but not what to do about it or how urgent it is. That gap is what creates panic and unnecessary delays.

A more useful approach has three parts.

1. The finding, stated plainly. Describe what you've found without adjectives. "When reviewing the documents ahead of exchange next Friday, I noticed that the ID number on the sale contract doesn't match the number on the copy of your passport." No "serious problem". No "concerning error". Just the fact.

2. What needs to happen. Tell the client what has to change. "We'll need a corrected version of the contract before we can proceed." Or, if the resolution is on their end: "Can you send me a clear copy of your passport so I can confirm which number is correct?" One action, clearly stated.

3. A deadline and the next step from you. Never close this kind of conversation with an open question. "If you can get that to me by Wednesday, I'll have the corrected version agreed with the other side's solicitor before Friday." That tells the client what they need to do, by when, and what happens after — and it keeps the matter moving.

Written or verbal?

For minor discrepancies that don't require client action, a file note is usually enough — and perhaps a single line in the appointment confirmation. There's no need to open a message thread about something that isn't a problem for the client.

For anything that requires them to do something, write it down. Not because of formality, but because the client may need to act quickly — forward your message, call the other side's solicitor, or find a document at short notice. A written message with the three points above gives them something concrete to work from. An email or a text message is fine. It just needs to be there.

If you don't hear back within the agreed time, a brief follow-up is appropriate. "Just a reminder that we need the updated ID copy by Wednesday to keep Friday's exchange on track." Tracking that follow-up is also part of the review process.

What not to do

Don't wait until the day of completion to mention it. Even a discrepancy that seems minor can take time to resolve — a document needs to be reprinted, the other side's solicitor needs to agree a correction, a client needs to locate an old passport. Raising it at the last moment turns a manageable issue into a crisis.

Don't use case-file language without translating it. Telling a client there is "an inconsistency between the identity particulars in the engrossment and those on the client due diligence documentation" explains nothing to most people. Say it the way you'd say it in person.

Don't bundle unrelated discrepancies without structure. If there are two separate issues, address each one in its own paragraph with its own action and deadline. A message that mixes two problems without separating them makes both feel bigger than they are.

Record it in the matter file

Any time you raise a discrepancy with a client, record it: when you told them, how, what they said, and how it was resolved. If there's ever a question about what was reviewed and what wasn't, that record is what speaks for you.

A discrepancy caught early and communicated clearly doesn't stall a matter. It protects it — and it tells the client that someone is paying close attention to the details of their transaction.

If you'd like support with document review and verification in your practice, VerifyAct has tools built for that.